5 ms·

Still doesn't make it ok, from an anti-competitive standpoint. "As long as I can download Netscape, having IE pre-installed is fine with me."

yummy 9y ago
It's better than having no browser at all... But what's the competition? Is uBlock gonna sue Google? No. Or adblock with a single developer? (Don't know if it's still true)... Well, no. Let's see how it's done. Most consumers will probably benefit from it.
- rootlocus 9y ago
  The competition isn't other ad blockers. It's other advertisers, which google could choose to block.
user5994461 9y ago
Having IE pre installed is a necessary. How do you use the internet with nothing installed? What's next? We're going to force shipping cars without wheels. It's unfair to decide what brand people should use without their consent.
- visarga 9y ago
  > Having IE pre installed is a necessary. How do you the internet with nothing installed? Evidently, you can use a CD or 100 floppy disks. But not necessary because IE is the best tool in the world for installing Chrome and Mozilla.
- vanadium 9y ago
  You might remember this: https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2013/03/eu-fines-microsoft-e561-million-for-not-giving-users-a-browser-choice/ https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2013/03/eu-fines-microso... Of course, that ended not too long ago. While having IE was necessary to hit the web, it immediately presented the choices available.
  - user5994461 9y ago
    I remember. It was so confusing and so annoying. It's like the one hundreds question the first time you opened the windows media player. Why can't I play my music???
- betterunix2 9y ago
  The EU forced Microsoft to give Windows users a choice of browsers: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BrowserChoice.eu https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BrowserChoice.eu Having IE preinstalled was not necessary; OEMs could have (and some did) preinstall other browsers. What happened was that Microsoft decided to base unrelated parts of Windows on IE so that their browser would have to be preinstalled (Windows would not function without it). There was top-level direction on that decision and it was not actually motivated by a specific technical need.
  - user5994461 9y ago
    OEM get paid to install software, they are not a receivable argument for what should be in a reasonable default install.
    - betterunix2 9y ago
      Maybe so, but there is also the fact that a lot of third-party software for Windows used IE simply because it was there, which obviously ate the market share of other browsers.
hutzlibu 9y ago
"As long as I can download Netscape, having IE pre-installed is fine with me." Sure it is. If I buy a operation system and it comes bundled with a browser ... why should that be a problem? (the problem I see somewhere else...that you have sometimes no choice except to use that OS because of market dominance)
- betterunix2 9y ago
  Windows became the dominant OS because of demand from computer users; the problem was that Microsoft used its dominance in the OS market as leverage to gain dominance in the browser market. It is not just that the OS came with a bundled browser -- Microsoft deliberately and for no technical reason made IE a dependency of several unrelated Windows features (e.g. the desktop, the file browser, etc.). Most people received Windows pre-installed on a computer they purchased; had Microsoft not made IE a dependency of Windows itself, OEMs would have bundled browsers according to customer demand. So yes, in fact, having IE pre-installed was a problem and ultimately Microsoft was forced to create this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BrowserChoice.eu https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BrowserChoice.eu
  - hutzlibu 9y ago
    Which was ridiculously as well, just like the cookie thing. "- Microsoft deliberately and for no technical reason made IE a dependency of several unrelated Windows features" So? But they did not forbid other browsers to run. People who wanted, could choose all the time. And even if they would have forbidden it, I still think regulation is stupid, because it still keeps the status quo of Microsoft OS Desktop dominance. (Luckily it doesn't matter much anymore) because when you regulate the worst things away, the base is still bad, but people have less incentive to change the platform for the better ...
SmellyGeekBoy 9y ago
How would the typical early-2000s Windows user have downloaded Netscape without a preinstalled browser? FTP on the command line?
- Donald 9y ago
  Have we forgotten how software was distributed in this era? https://i.imgur.com/RShi0Sg.jpg https://i.imgur.com/RShi0Sg.jpg
- ksk 9y ago
  Makes sense to include a tool with the OS that would let you download stuff then. Like a web browser. :)

yummy 9y ago

It's better than having no browser at all... But what's the competition? Is uBlock gonna sue Google? No. Or adblock with a single developer? (Don't know if it's still true)... Well, no. Let's see how it's done. Most consumers will probably benefit from it.

rootlocus 9y ago
The competition isn't other ad blockers. It's other advertisers, which google could choose to block.

user5994461 9y ago

Having IE pre installed is a necessary. How do you use the internet with nothing installed? What's next? We're going to force shipping cars without wheels. It's unfair to decide what brand people should use without their consent.

visarga 9y ago
> Having IE pre installed is a necessary. How do you the internet with nothing installed? Evidently, you can use a CD or 100 floppy disks. But not necessary because IE is the best tool in the world for installing Chrome and Mozilla.
vanadium 9y ago
You might remember this: https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2013/03/eu-fines-microsoft-e561-million-for-not-giving-users-a-browser-choice/ https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2013/03/eu-fines-microso... Of course, that ended not too long ago. While having IE was necessary to hit the web, it immediately presented the choices available.
- user5994461 9y ago
  I remember. It was so confusing and so annoying. It's like the one hundreds question the first time you opened the windows media player. Why can't I play my music???
betterunix2 9y ago
The EU forced Microsoft to give Windows users a choice of browsers: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BrowserChoice.eu https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BrowserChoice.eu Having IE preinstalled was not necessary; OEMs could have (and some did) preinstall other browsers. What happened was that Microsoft decided to base unrelated parts of Windows on IE so that their browser would have to be preinstalled (Windows would not function without it). There was top-level direction on that decision and it was not actually motivated by a specific technical need.
- user5994461 9y ago
  OEM get paid to install software, they are not a receivable argument for what should be in a reasonable default install.
  - betterunix2 9y ago
    Maybe so, but there is also the fact that a lot of third-party software for Windows used IE simply because it was there, which obviously ate the market share of other browsers.

hutzlibu 9y ago

"As long as I can download Netscape, having IE pre-installed is fine with me." Sure it is. If I buy a operation system and it comes bundled with a browser ... why should that be a problem? (the problem I see somewhere else...that you have sometimes no choice except to use that OS because of market dominance)

betterunix2 9y ago
Windows became the dominant OS because of demand from computer users; the problem was that Microsoft used its dominance in the OS market as leverage to gain dominance in the browser market. It is not just that the OS came with a bundled browser -- Microsoft deliberately and for no technical reason made IE a dependency of several unrelated Windows features (e.g. the desktop, the file browser, etc.). Most people received Windows pre-installed on a computer they purchased; had Microsoft not made IE a dependency of Windows itself, OEMs would have bundled browsers according to customer demand. So yes, in fact, having IE pre-installed was a problem and ultimately Microsoft was forced to create this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BrowserChoice.eu https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BrowserChoice.eu
- hutzlibu 9y ago
  Which was ridiculously as well, just like the cookie thing. "- Microsoft deliberately and for no technical reason made IE a dependency of several unrelated Windows features" So? But they did not forbid other browsers to run. People who wanted, could choose all the time. And even if they would have forbidden it, I still think regulation is stupid, because it still keeps the status quo of Microsoft OS Desktop dominance. (Luckily it doesn't matter much anymore) because when you regulate the worst things away, the base is still bad, but people have less incentive to change the platform for the better ...

SmellyGeekBoy 9y ago

How would the typical early-2000s Windows user have downloaded Netscape without a preinstalled browser? FTP on the command line?

Donald 9y ago
Have we forgotten how software was distributed in this era? https://i.imgur.com/RShi0Sg.jpg https://i.imgur.com/RShi0Sg.jpg
ksk 9y ago
Makes sense to include a tool with the OS that would let you download stuff then. Like a web browser. :)